UYPITCHING V. QUIAMCO 510 SCRA 172 (2007)

Honeste vivere, non alterum laedere et jus suum cuique tribuere.

To live virtuously, not to injure others and to give everyone his due. These supreme norms of justice are the underlying principles of law and order in society.

FACTS:

·          In 1982, respondent Quiamco was approached by Davalan, Gabutero and Generoso to settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by Quiamco against them.

·          They surrendered to him a red Honda motorcycle and a photocopy of its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the original certificate of registration but the three accused never came to see him again. 

·          Meanwhile, the motorcycle was parked in an open space inside respondent‘s business establishment, where it was visible and accessible to the public.

·          It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by Uypitching Sons, Inc. And to secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner corporation.

·          When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan assumed the obligation and continued the payments.

·          In September 1982, however, Davalan stopped paying the remaining installments.

·          Nine years later, petitioner Uypitching, accompanied by policemen, went to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises to recover the motorcycle.

·          The leader of the police team talked to the clerk in charge and asked for respondent. While P/Lt. Vendiola and the clerk were talking, petitioner Uypitching paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering "Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle."

·          Unable to find respondent, the policemen on petitioner Uypitching‘s  instructionand over the clerk‘s objection, took the motorcycle.

·          Petitioner Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law against respondent but was dismissed.

·          Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners in the RTC

·          The trial court rendered a decision finding that petitioner Uypitching was motivated with malice and ill will when he called respondent a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law

·          Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the trial court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

WON the filing of a complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law warranted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney‘s  fees and costs in favor of respondent.

HELD: YES. 

They were held liable for damages not only for instituting a groundless complaint against respondent but also for making a slanderous remark and for taking the motorcycle from respondent’s establishment in an abusive manner .Petitioners Abused Their Right of Recovery as Mortgagee(s)

  A mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property to enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right there on. There is, however, a well-defined procedure for the recovery of possession of mortgaged property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a mortgaged property for its sale on foreclosure, he must bring a civil action either to recover such possession as a preliminary step to the sale, or to obtain judicial foreclosure  .Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action necessary to acquire legal possession of the motorcycle. Instead, petitioner Uypitching descended on respondent‘s establishment with his policemen and ordered the seizure of the motorcycle without a search warrant or court order. Worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner Uypitching even mouthed a slanderous statement.

Petitioners‘ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper  norms of human relations.

The basic principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code .Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith ,otherwise he opens himself to liability. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another.

The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh;

there must be nointention to harm another.

In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners‘ instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent.

Petitioners acted in an excessively harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent.

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners, vs. ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. “AMAY BISAYA”, respondent (G.R. No. 154259 February 28, 2005)

Facts:

                        This is a petition for review on certiorari regarding the reversing decision of the Court of Appeals in the decision of the Trial Court and thus, making the petitioners liable for damages through the abusive conduct of petitioner Lim, imposing upon them P200,000 as exemplary damages, P200,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as attorney’s fees.

                        Plaintiff Roberto Reyes (Amay Bisaya) was having coffee at the Nikko Hotel lobby on October 13, 1994 at around six in the morning when Dr. Violeta Filart, a long-time friend, approached him and invited him to a party at the penthouse where the hotel’s former manager’s birthday was being celebrated. He consented and carried the latter’s present. At the party, when he was helping himself at the buffet table, Ruby Lim, one of the petitioners, approached him and asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard by those around the buffet table. Then, a Makati policeman accompanied the embarrassed Amay Bisaya in leaving the penthouse.

                        Ruby Lim accepted the fact that she asked Mr. Reyes to leave but not in the manner he claimed. She said she politely asked Mr. Reyes to finish his food and leave the party as the celebrant wants the party to be intimate, and that he was not invited. On the other hand, Dr. Filart denied Amay Bisaya’s claim that she invited him to the party.

Issue:

                        Whether or not petitioner Lim’s conduct was abusive enough to make the petitioners liable for damages caused to plaintiff.

Held:

                       No. The Supreme Court ruled that any damage which Mr. Reyes might have suffered through Ms. Lim’s exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone.

                        The plaintiff failed in proving the ill-motive of the petitioners. It was from his confession that when Ms. Lim approached him, they were very close that they nearly kissed each other. Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when she requested the latter to leave the party, it is apparent that the request was meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause him embarrassment. It was plaintiff’s reaction to the request that must have made the other guests aware of what transpired between them. Had plaintiff simply left the party as requested, there was no need for the police to take him out. Therefore, we find the petitioners not guilty of violating Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

                        WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition filed by Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001 and its Resolution dated 09 July 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 26 April 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

                        SO ORDERED.

ALBENSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the business establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson.

ISSUE:

Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise.

RULING:

Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didn’t have the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them. There was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries:

·         SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao

·         Bank said signature belonged to EB

·         EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and the III.

There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that:

·         the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and

·         that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless

Elements of abuse of right under Article 19:

1.        there is a legal right or duty

2.        exercised in bad faith

3.        for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores:

1.        there is an act which is legal

2.        but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy

3.        it is done with intent to injure

A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao.